Please recommend a good Router

[taltamir]

no router is sold where it requires a reboot every couple of days... inadequate cooling + heavy traffic degrade its CPU until it becomes unstable, typically after 6 - 18 months. at which point it requires constant reboots and resets if you try to use it for heavy traffic.

 

[Eug]

Originally posted by: taltamir
no router is sold where it requires a reboot every couple of days...

I've owned one brand new D-Link and one brand new Linksys that couldn't last more than a few days under heavy load, in a room of about 23 degrees C.

Both units only really worked fine with light surfing and infrequent file transfers.

 

[ccbadd]

If you really want something close the a Cisco's reliability for a lower cost, get a Soekris or Alix embedded PC and run monowall or pfsense. You can add a wifi card or just use your current router as an AP. I use pfsense on an Alix board and never have to reboot. I like DD-WRT, but it has never been anywhere near as stable as pfsense and can not handle but about 1/10th the number of concurrent connections (important for torrets). The cost will be closer to $200 but will not be obsolete in two years!

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: Eug

Originally posted by: taltamir
no router is sold where it requires a reboot every couple of days...

I've owned one brand new D-Link and one brand new Linksys that couldn't last more than a few days under heavy load, in a room of about 23 degrees C.

Both units only really worked fine with light surfing and infrequent file transfers.

if they were new, than most likely they did not NEED a reboot. Rebooting them allowed you to regain the connection, but you would have gotten the connection back as the connection table flushed out.

There are two reasons why routers "need rebooting" (well, one reason why they need rebooting and one why people think they need rebooting but they don't)
1. The router crashed - there was a critical error, such as division by zero. Happens due to an error in the routers cpu or ram (typically due to overheating degrading them over time), or due to a bug in firmware (the router operating system), or due to any of its components being defective.
2. The router's connection table (which resides in its ram) filled up - it does not actually need a reboot, simply WAITING will allow previously unused connections to be deleted, allowing new connections to open. Using something like DD-WRT on this type of router (low ram budger routers) and setting it to shorter timeouts will resolve the issue.

For people who don't use torrents a low ram router is fine... but otherwise you need a good amount of ram. So buy a router appropriate for your needs.

No router with a good amount of ram will need rebooting at first (unless it is a singular defective unit), it takes about 6 - 18 months for its CPU to degrade due to overheating (because they are typically undercooled and overclocked).

And I have never, EVER, saw a router that wasn't undercooled and overclocked that wasn't 10x the price of a similarly speced router from companies targeting consumers instead of large corporations. So instead of lamenting it or giving your misleading stories, just accept that you are getting a deal compared to a cisco router, and plug it through a switch to ease the load on the router's CPU.

 

[suklee]

Originally posted by: taltamir
There are two reasons why routers "need rebooting" (well, one reason why they need rebooting and one why people think they need rebooting but they don't)
1. The router crashed - there was a critical error, such as division by zero. Happens due to an error in the routers cpu or ram (typically due to overheating degrading them over time), or due to a bug in firmware (the router operating system), or due to any of its components being defective.
2. The router's connection table (which resides in its ram) filled up - it does not actually need a reboot, simply WAITING will allow previously unused connections to be deleted, allowing new connections to open. Using something like DD-WRT on this type of router (low ram budger routers) and setting it to shorter timeouts will resolve the issue.

I've got a WRT54G v5, and I need to pull the power on the thing at least once per week. When the router 'freezes' it gets to the point where I can't even FTP properly. Will getting dd-wrt micro on my v5 help stability at all? Is it worth going through the trouble.

Other thing is : for a replacement, is the Asus WL-520GU a good choice? It seems to be recommended..

Thanks

 

[JackMDS]

It is Not such a big trouble and there is a good chance that it would help.

If it is No Good, or you consider the "Trouble" worth more than $35, then get the ASUS.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16833320023

 

[taltamir]

I've got a WRT54G v5, and I need to pull the power on the thing at least once per week. When the router 'freezes' it gets to the point where I can't even FTP properly. Will getting dd-wrt micro on my v5 help stability at all? Is it worth going through the trouble.

No, your router's CPU is shot and needs replacing (which you can't do since it is soldered on). But that is ok, Getting one that wasn't dangerously overclocked you would have paid 300$ for a cisco one with identical features.

 

[suklee]

OK I'll give it a go. I found this guide http://www.bitsum.com/openwiki...w.asp?p=WRT54G5_CFE#h9 which seems to be comprehensive.

I found a newer version (dd-wrt.v24_micro_generic.bin) than the one mentioned so I''m guessing I should use the v24 one.

 

[Eug]

Originally posted by: taltamir

Originally posted by: Eug

Originally posted by: taltamir
no router is sold where it requires a reboot every couple of days...

I've owned one brand new D-Link and one brand new Linksys that couldn't last more than a few days under heavy load, in a room of about 23 degrees C.

Both units only really worked fine with light surfing and infrequent file transfers.

if they were new, than most likely they did not NEED a reboot. Rebooting them allowed you to regain the connection, but you would have gotten the connection back as the connection table flushed out.

There are two reasons why routers "need rebooting" (well, one reason why they need rebooting and one why people think they need rebooting but they don't)
1. The router crashed - there was a critical error, such as division by zero. Happens due to an error in the routers cpu or ram (typically due to overheating degrading them over time), or due to a bug in firmware (the router operating system), or due to any of its components being defective.
2. The router's connection table (which resides in its ram) filled up - it does not actually need a reboot, simply WAITING will allow previously unused connections to be deleted, allowing new connections to open. Using something like DD-WRT on this type of router (low ram budger routers) and setting it to shorter timeouts will resolve the issue.

For people who don't use torrents a low ram router is fine... but otherwise you need a good amount of ram. So buy a router appropriate for your needs.

No router with a good amount of ram will need rebooting at first (unless it is a singular defective unit), it takes about 6 - 18 months for its CPU to degrade due to overheating (because they are typically undercooled and overclocked).

And I have never, EVER, saw a router that wasn't undercooled and overclocked that wasn't 10x the price of a similarly speced router from companies targeting consumers instead of large corporations. So instead of lamenting it or giving your misleading stories, just accept that you are getting a deal compared to a cisco router, and plug it through a switch to ease the load on the router's CPU.

I don't really care as to the why, just the what. And the what is that many consumer-grade routers with the default firmwares (even after updates) will simply fail to cope with heavy consumer-level usage, even when brand new.

It's irrelevant that open source hacks can (sometimes) fix this. What's relevant is that units as shipped are just not up to the task. Buying a different model will fix the problem.

And even if waiting could fix the issue... who wants to wait? Why bother with such annoyances when you can simply return the unit and get a different model for the same money that doesn't suffer the same issues?

P.S. How long must one wait anyway? For at least one of those units, I've had it sit for a few hours and it was still hung... and it would hang every few days. From what I read at the time, I was not alone. As far as I'm concerned, that puts it into the junk hardware category. So, I just returned it and got something else.

 

[mooseracing]

Mini itx pc and IPcop.

Works great, simple, reliable.

Causes alot let stress as well.

 

[taltamir]

It's irrelevant that open source hacks can fix this

they don't, its a tradeoff that causes pages to time out when browsing on occasion, but allows you to deal with greater torrent traffic.

many consumer-grade routers with the default firmwares (even after updates) will simply fail to cope with heavy consumer-level usage, even when brand new.

You get what you pay for, unless you get ripped off. You need a router with plenty of CPU and RAM to cope with heavy torrent traffic.

Buying a different model will fix the problem.

Only a top end gigabit ethernet/wireless N will have the CPU power and RAM to deal with it, and even then it is limited in capacity, this is a tech limitation, and your anectodal claims that there is a magical router that work are plain wrong (which is part of why it has so many refurb, aka, broken and fixed, units)

And even if waiting could fix the issue... who wants to wait? Why bother with such annoyances when you can simply return the unit and get a different model for the same money that doesn't suffer the same issues?

Because you can't get a different unit for the same money that will not have the issue. You are simply meshing two completely irrelevant issues together. and sprinkling it with the hyping of a product that does not deserve such hype.

 

[Eug]

Originally posted by: taltamir

Buying a different model will fix the problem.

Only a top end gigabit ethernet/wireless N will have the CPU power and RAM to deal with it, and even then it is limited in capacity, this is a tech limitation, and your anectodal claims that there is a magical router that work are plain wrong (which is part of why it has so many refurb, aka, broken and fixed, units)

And even if waiting could fix the issue... who wants to wait? Why bother with such annoyances when you can simply return the unit and get a different model for the same money that doesn't suffer the same issues?

Because you can't get a different unit for the same money that will not have the issue. You are simply meshing two completely irrelevant issues together. and sprinkling it with the hyping of a product that does not deserve such hype.

You can repeat yourself as much as you wish, but contrary to your claims, I have low cost non-hacked units that stay stable without my having to fiddle at all, at least for my usage. It was just annoying to get there, cuz I had to try many different models of hardware.

So, the non-hacked solutions are:

1) Buy a high dollar Cisco router. High expense, low hassle.
2) Buy low cost consumer grade routers and return them until you find one that stands up to your usage patterns. High hassle, low expense.

I chose option #2, and it has served me well. Luckily I don't need QoS or WDS support or whatever.

Plus, you keep saying that no brand new router requires a reboot every few days... when it's clear that many people here have to do that.

You then say that getting a new router will not solve the problem (ignoring the fact that you claim the problem doesn't really exist in the first place), despite the fact that people have already reported getting a different router solves the problem.

 

[taltamir]

are you intentionally misinterpreting every word that I type?
Forget it, you do what you want, and anyone can read our discussion and understand what they understand.

 

[JackMDS]

Originally posted by: taltamiranyone can read our discussion and understand what they understand.

:thumbsup:

There is a tendency of people to strongly advocate their solutions as though it is the 11th commandment while forgetting that the others might have different needs, may know about Networking less (or more), and have different Socioeconomic constrains/advantages.

So One should put the emphasis on providing info rather than keep insisting that others should adopt his personal solutions.

As an example, I advocate a lot the Asus 500 solution, I am familiar with the hardware I and installed them for friends and know how they are used. However personally I use Buffalo Hight Power Wireless Routers cause I can afford the extra $30 and I like the Buffalo better.

That said, it does not mean that most people cannot benefit just as well from the Asus 500 and save themselves $30.

 

[Eug]

Originally posted by: taltamir
are you intentionally misinterpreting every word that I type?

Well... This statement seems pretty clear... and dogmatic:

no router is sold where it requires a reboot every couple of days... inadequate cooling + heavy traffic degrade its CPU until it becomes unstable, typically after 6 - 18 months. at which point it requires constant reboots and resets if you try to use it for heavy traffic.

Unfortunately, it's not completely true. Many people have bought brand new routers that exhibit this very behaviour. Actually, there are reports of this on this very forum. Whether or not it's due to bad firmwares, faulty hardware, or limited RAM or whatever is not the issue. The issue is many new routers actually do exhibit this type of behaviour, despite your claims otherwise.

I agree that one should choose an option that suits his needs. However, one should do that with open eyes and correct information. Blanket statements like the one you made above are at best misleading.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: ccbadd
If you really want something close the a Cisco's reliability for a lower cost, get a Soekris or Alix embedded PC and run monowall or pfsense. You can add a wifi card or just use your current router as an AP. I use pfsense on an Alix board and never have to reboot. I like DD-WRT, but it has never been anywhere near as stable as pfsense and can not handle but about 1/10th the number of concurrent connections (important for torrets). The cost will be closer to $200 but will not be obsolete in two years!

Or just pick up any of the junk pc that people are throwing away.
P3-900 with 256mb ram + pfsense can handle anything most home users will throw at it.
Doesn't even have to have a hard drive. Just a floppy to save the config and cdrom to boot the system.

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: Eug

Originally posted by: taltamir
no router is sold where it requires a reboot every couple of days... inadequate cooling + heavy traffic degrade its CPU until it becomes unstable, typically after 6 - 18 months. at which point it requires constant reboots and resets if you try to use it for heavy traffic.

Unfortunately, it's not completely true. Many people have bought brand new routers that exhibit this very behaviour. Actually, there are reports of this on this very forum. Whether or not it's due to bad firmwares, faulty hardware, or limited RAM or whatever is not the issue. The issue is many new routers actually do exhibit this type of behaviour, despite your claims otherwise.

See, this is exactly what I mean when I say you are intentionally misinterpreting me...

Originally posted by: taltamir
No router with a good amount of ram will need rebooting at first (unless it is a singular defective unit), it takes about 6 - 18 months for its CPU to degrade due to overheating (because they are typically undercooled and overclocked).

bolded for emphasis...
Yea, people sometimes buy a unit that arrives defective, big deal.
This is exactly the sort of misinterpretation I was talking about btw...

 

[JackMDS]

If there is nothing really new in the arguments please leave the issues as is, otherwise this thread is losing its utility and is destined to be locked.

 

[suklee]

Originally posted by: JackMDS
As an example, I advocate a lot the Asus 500 solution, I am familiar with the hardware I and installed them for friends and know how they are used. However personally I use Buffalo Hight Power Wireless Routers cause I can afford the extra $30 and I like the Buffalo better.

That said, it does not mean that most people cannot benefit just as well from the Asus 500 and save themselves $30.

Which of these would you recommend?

BUFFALO WHR-HP-G54 125M High Power Router (I can get this for ~USD55)
BUFFALO WHR-HP-AG108-EU 108G MIMO Router (~USD90)

Am I likely to see much difference in the 2nd model for home use?

PS. The ASUS WL-520GU 125M is only ~USD34 for me comparitively

 

[JackMDS]

Originally posted by: Kai920
Which of these would you recommend?

BUFFALO WHR-HP-G54 125M High Power Router (I can get this for ~USD55)
BUFFALO WHR-HP-AG108-EU 108G MIMO Router (~USD90)

Am I likely to see much difference in the 2nd model for home use?

PS. The ASUS WL-520GU 125M is only ~USD34 for me comparitively

The WHR-HP-AG108-EU is an AG Router the G would be the same in both, however if for some reason you need 802.11a then you should buy the AG.

The main reason that some Home users might buy AG is if the G band is very noisy with neighboring signals on all channels to a degree that it becomes useless.

The Asus is very good too, but the Buffallo HP provides stronger Wireless signal because it has a High Power RF output to the Antenna.

Thus if strong signal is not something that you need you can go with the Asus.

 

[suklee]

High Power - that means longer range? does high power also mean it can go through thicker walls? (my apartment's got concrete walls which I find tends to degrade my WRT54G's signals very quickly)

I don't need A (don't think I have any "A" wifi clients) so I'll stick with either the HP-G54 or the Asus.

Thanks for the tips!